Fike test in Kansas

2006The court discussed the Fike test and then stated: “Warren’s multiplicity argument first will be analyzed under the second prong of the Fike test.” 252 Kan. at 180 .

2006The court discussed the Fike test and then stated: “Warren’s multiplicity argument first will be analyzed under the second prong of the Fike test.” 252 Kan. at 180 .

2006We therefore adopt use of the strict elements analysis to determine multiplicity for several reasons: (1) for facility of application and certainty and (2) to avoid any possibility of returning to the difficulties of die second prong of the Fike test.” 280 Kan. at 393 .

2006We therefore adopt use of the strict elements analysis to determine multiplicity for several reasons: (1) for facility of application and certainty and (2) to avoid any possibility of returning to the difficulties of die second prong of the Fike test.” 280 Kan. at 393 .

1998Following State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368, 373 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981), the Warren court noted that (1) a single offense may not be divided into separate parts; generally, a single wrongful act may not furnish the basis for more than one criminal prosecution; (2) if each offense charged requires proof of a fact not required in proving the other, the offenses do not merge; (3) where offenses are committed separately and severally, at different times and at different places, they do not arise out of a single wrongful act. 252 Kan. at 175 .

1998Following State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368, 373 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981), the Warren court noted that (1) a single offense may not be divided into separate parts; generally, a single wrongful act may not furnish the basis for more than one criminal prosecution; (2) if each offense charged requires proof of a fact not required in proving the other, the offenses do not merge; (3) where offenses are committed separately and severally, at different times and at different places, they do not arise out of a single wrongful act. 252 Kan. at 175 .

2006See L. 1998, ch. 185, sec. 1; State v. Saiz, 269 Kan. 657, 661-63 , 7 P.3d 1214 (2000).

2006See L. 1998, ch. 185, sec. 1; State v. Saiz, 269 Kan. 657, 661-63 , 7 P.3d 1214 (2000).

2006In one of the last cases to apply the “necessarily proved” test of K.S.A. 21-3107 before it was removed from the statute by a 1998 amendment, the court observed that “[t]he Fike test has been frequently applied in performing multiplicity analyses.” State v. Robbins, 272 Kan. 158, 172-73 , 32 P.3d 171 (2001) (crimes occurring before amendment).

2006In one of the last cases to apply the “necessarily proved” test of K.S.A. 21-3107 before it was removed from the statute by a 1998 amendment, the court observed that “[t]he Fike test has been frequently applied in performing multiplicity analyses.” State v. Robbins, 272 Kan. 158, 172-73 , 32 P.3d 171 (2001) (crimes occurring before amendment).

2003Berberich, 248 Kan. at 857 .

2000In State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1 , 988 P.2d 722 (1999), the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and four counts of attempted first-degree murder.

2000In State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1 , 988 P.2d 722 (1999), the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and four counts of attempted first-degree murder.

1997See State v. Rinck, 256 Kan. 848, 850-51 , 888 P.2d 845 (1995); State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169, 176-77 , 843 P.2d 224 (1992); Perry, 16 Kan.

1997See State v. Rinck, 256 Kan. 848, 850-51 , 888 P.2d 845 (1995); State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169, 176-77 , 843 P.2d 224 (1992); Perry, 16 Kan.

1996In State v. DePriest, 258 Kan. 596, 604-05 , 907 P.2d 868 (1995), we said: “We need not engage in a Fike analysis under the facts of this case because solicitation to commit first-degree murder is an independent criminal offense, separate and distinct from aiding and abetting first-degree murder.

1996In State v. DePriest, 258 Kan. 596, 604-05 , 907 P.2d 868 (1995), we said: “We need not engage in a Fike analysis under the facts of this case because solicitation to commit first-degree murder is an independent criminal offense, separate and distinct from aiding and abetting first-degree murder.

1995According to the second prong of the Fike analysis, “ ‘a lesser crime may become a lesser included offense of a greater offense if the information actually alleges a lesser crime and the evidence which must be established to prove the crime charged also proves the lesser crime/ ” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776, 784 , 811 P.2d 1153 (1991). “[T]he test is not what the State may prove, but what the State is required to prove.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rush, 255 Kan. 672, 677 , 877 P.2d 386 (1994).

1995According to the second prong of the Fike analysis, “ ‘a lesser crime may become a lesser included offense of a greater offense if the information actually alleges a lesser crime and the evidence which must be established to prove the crime charged also proves the lesser crime/ ” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776, 784 , 811 P.2d 1153 (1991). “[T]he test is not what the State may prove, but what the State is required to prove.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rush, 255 Kan. 672, 677 , 877 P.2d 386 (1994).

1995According to the second prong of the Fike analysis, “ ‘a lesser crime may become a lesser included offense of a greater offense if the information actually alleges a lesser crime and the evidence which must be established to prove the crime charged also proves the lesser crime/ ” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776, 784 , 811 P.2d 1153 (1991). “[T]he test is not what the State may prove, but what the State is required to prove.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rush, 255 Kan. 672, 677 , 877 P.2d 386 (1994).

1995According to the second prong of the Fike analysis, “ ‘a lesser crime may become a lesser included offense of a greater offense if the information actually alleges a lesser crime and the evidence which must be established to prove the crime charged also proves the lesser crime/ ” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776, 784 , 811 P.2d 1153 (1991). “[T]he test is not what the State may prove, but what the State is required to prove.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rush, 255 Kan. 672, 677 , 877 P.2d 386 (1994).

1994Reversing, the Court of Appeals agreed, finding that, under the Fike test, batteiy was charged and proven as part of the original charge. 16 Kan.

1994Reversing, the Court of Appeals agreed, finding that, under the Fike test, batteiy was charged and proven as part of the original charge. 16 Kan.

1994If the factual allegations in the charging document allege a lesser crime which does not meet the statutory elements test and the evidence which must be adduced at trial for the purpose of proving the crime as charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime, the latter is an ‘included crime’ under the definition in 21-3107(2)(d).” In State v. Gibson, 246 Kan. 298, 300 , 787 P.2d 1176 (1990), we cautioned against confusing what the State may actually prove in its evidence with what the State was required to prove to establish the crime charged, stating: “The mere fact that the evidence ad

1994If the factual allegations in the charging document allege a lesser crime which does not meet the statutory elements test and the evidence which must be adduced at trial for the purpose of proving the crime as charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime, the latter is an ‘included crime’ under the definition in 21-3107(2)(d).” In State v. Gibson, 246 Kan. 298, 300 , 787 P.2d 1176 (1990), we cautioned against confusing what the State may actually prove in its evidence with what the State was required to prove to establish the crime charged, stating: “The mere fact that the evidence ad